-->
@3RU7AL
and it's not free from anything
Never said it was.
I have spent lot of years mainly figuring out what myself and this reality is all about.
Posts
Total:
292
-->
@3RU7AL
your existence is caused by "external forces"
ok.
your biology is caused by "external forces"
No it is not. It is the material cause which makes up the matter of the person. That is something intrinsic to the person. Without it, he has no proper existance.
at some point you can rename those "external forces" to "internal forces"
I do not agree.
Without intrinsic causes you cannot exist.
Without "what you are made of" and "what you are " you do not exist.
-->
@MAV99
and you support this hypothesiswith an "appeal to ignorance"basically"we don't know exactly what it is and exactly how it functions, therefore SPIRIT"Care to site where this "appeal to ignorance" is?Because I certainly never said "We dont know exactly what it is and exactly how it works, therefore spirit"Do you like throwing words in peoples mouths?
you haven't made a sound case for "SPIRIT"
the fact that you have made no case is itself an "appeal to ignorance"
i am willing to accept "SPIRIT" as a hypothetical
i believe we have already agreed that "SPIRIT" has finite parameters and or functions and has a capacity to learn from experience and or accumulate data
which renders it functionally moot
-->
@MAV99
and it's not free from anythingNever said it was.
ok, so why use the word "free"
what is the distinction you are trying to make by using the word ?
-->
@MAV99
your biology is caused by "external forces"No it is not. It is the material cause which makes up the matter of the person. That is something intrinsic to the person. Without it, he has no proper existance.
are you
or are you not
the product
of a
sperm
and
an
egg
?
-->
@MAV99
at some point you can rename those "external forces" to "internal forces"I do not agree.Without intrinsic causes you cannot exist.Without "what you are made of" and "what you are " you do not exist.
you seem to be suggesting that the "you" that is "you" is either
uncaused
or
self-caused
-->
@3RU7AL
you haven't made a sound case for "SPIRIT"the fact that you have made no case is itself an "appeal to ignorance"i am willing to accept "SPIRIT" as a hypotheticali believe we have already agreed that "SPIRIT" has finite parameters and or functions and has a capacity to learn from experience and or accumulate datawhich renders it functionally moot
I have made a case for "spirit" by even providing a definition of what I mean by it as in post number 263
I do not define "spirit" as some "ghost" or "airy thingy"
I defined it as a principle, that is an entity in itself, that is source of the life proper to humans.
I have backed up what I mean by "life proper to humnas" throughout the conversation by drawing distinctions in our functions that animals and plants do not have.
I haved backed up the idea of the "spirit" as a seperate entity by showing that it is equal to the formal cause of humans, thus making it properly what we are, to gether with our biology and experiance makes us who we are.
?
When we say it is an intrinsic cause, we are talking about the causes thta make up the person himself. Wher I came from is not an internal cause. We call that an efficient cause. It is the cause that brought about the disposition in you in order to be.
-->
@3RU7AL
ok, so why use the word "free"what is the distinction you are trying to make by using the word ?
Because the word free" has other senses.
You can be free towards something. Like if someone were to ask me at the dealership which car out of the six in front of me do I want. It is a freedom towards something. It is not a freedom from something.
Do you see the difference?
-->
@3RU7AL
you seem to be suggesting that the "you" that is "you" is eitheruncausedorself-caused
Not quite.
My efficient cause is my parents. They disposed the matter to receive existance. In this sense they caused me. That is external to me.
But the intrinsic cause that maintains my being is the material cause (what we are made of) and the formal cause(which is the by what we are).
-->
@MAV99
"a non-physical entity that acts as the principle of the life particuler to humans."
this is merely a description, not a sound case in support of "SPIRIT"
i believe we have already agreed that "SPIRIT" has finite parameters and or functions and has a capacity to learn from experience and or accumulate data
i believe we have already agreed that "SPIRIT" has finite parameters and or functions and has a capacity to learn from experience and or accumulate data
i believe we have already agreed that "SPIRIT" has finite parameters and or functions and has a capacity to learn from experience and or accumulate data
do we agree on this, or do you have something to add ?
-->
@MAV99
You can be free towards something. Like if someone were to ask me at the dealership which car out of the six in front of me do I want. It is a freedom towards something. It is not a freedom from something.
the implication at the car dealership
is that you are not being influenced by the salesperson beyond the obvious limit to your six options
you are free from influence by the salesperson
furthermore
in order to make a truly free selection from among the six presented options
they must be roughly equivalent
perhaps not identical
but have the same number of "pros and cons"
i mean
if five of the six options were obviously dilapidated piles of junk
at that point
you are not really free to choose them
you are constrained by your motive for being there in the first place
presumably to get the best price for a functional vehicle that will not be embarrassing to drive
-->
@MAV99
My efficient cause is my parents. They disposed the matter to receive existance. In this sense they caused me. That is external to me.
i'm with you on this point
But the intrinsic cause that maintains my being is the material cause (what we are made of) and the formal cause(which is the by what we are).
i don't see how your material cause is not caused by the efficient cause
i don't see how your formal cause is not caused by the efficient cause
-->
@3RU7AL
this is merely a description, not a sound case in support of "SPIRIT"
It is a definition of "spirit" that I am giving to express my point. Even if it is only a description, which I could argue, descriptive definitions are perfectly usable in an argument.
i believe we have already agreed that "SPIRIT" has finite parameters and or functions and has a capacity to learn from experience and or accumulate data
I did not agree to this.
These are the functions of the brain, which is an organ in the body. This is not at all what I am talking about when I mean "spirit."
The functions I described are of the Form of humans.
-->
@3RU7AL
the implication at the car dealershipis that you are not being influenced by the salesperson beyond the obvious limit to your six options
No! That is not at all what I am saying!
The person is not free from the influence of the car salesperson. Nor is he free from the influence of which cars look better, etc,
Let me try explaining it this way.
in order to be free causually, which means free from, you would essetially have to be God.
To be free effectually, which means free towards an effect that is possible from a single cause, simply means you need the intellect to know the possibilities and a will to effectuate one of them.
in order to make a truly free selection from among the six presented optionsthey must be roughly equivalentperhaps not identicalbut have the same number of "pros and cons"
No they do not. There is nothing about effectual freedom that implies all options must be equivalent. Effectual freedom only implies there must be various understood options. At least two.
i meanif five of the six options were obviously dilapidated piles of junkat that pointyou are not really free to choose themyou are constrained by your motive for being there in the first placepresumably to get the best price for a functional vehicle that will not be embarrassing to drive
This is irrelevant. All you are doing here is adding something to the argument that is not necessarily true and is completly besides the point.
-->
@3RU7AL
i don't see how your material cause is not caused by the efficient causei don't see how your formal cause is not caused by the efficient cause
They are caused by the efficient cause.
That does not mean that material and formal causes are extrinsic. Namely their existance is caused by something extrinsic. They themselves are intrinsic.
Also causes are causes to each other in different orders.
In the order of being form is before matter,
in the order of time form and matter are simultaneous,
in the order of causality form and matter cause the thing simultaneously,
etc...
-->
@MAV99
descriptive definitions are perfectly usable in an argument.
only if both parties agree on the definition
-->
@MAV99
The functions I described are of the Form of humans.
this statement means nothing
-->
@MAV99
in order to be free causually, which means free from, you would essetially have to be God.
even a god cannot have "free-will"
-->
@MAV99
To be free effectually, which means free towards an effect that is possible from a single cause, simply means you need the intellect to know the possibilities and a will to effectuate one of them.
"intellect" is fully caused
and
"will" is also fully caused
and
your ability to imagine "possibilities"
is fully caused
-->
@MAV99
That does not mean that material and formal causes are extrinsic. Namely their existance is caused by something extrinsic. They themselves are intrinsic.
this appears to be a distinction without a difference
-->
@3RU7AL
this statement means nothing
No. It definitely means something.
"intellect" is fully causedand"will" is also fully causedandyour ability to imagine "possibilities"is fully caused
You are not even addressing what I am saying in this post.
this appears to be a distinction without a difference
There is a difference between the thing itself and its relation to other things.
-->
@MAV99
There is a difference between the thing itself and its relation to other things.
we seem to agree that "libertarian free-will" (freedom from cause-and-effect) is impossible